Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Myths of the Free Market
Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.
........................
The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.
Table 1: Average Annual Growth in Real GNP per Capita
Country / 1980-1994 / 1985-1994
South Korea* 7.72% / 8.17%
Thailand* 5.81% / 7.74%
Taiwan* 6.20% / 7.07%
Peoples * 6.46% / 5.83%
Indonesia* 3.26% / 4.40%
Ireland 3.08% / 4.11%
India* 3.07% / 3.00%
Japan 2.88% / 2.78%
Spain 1.98% /2.65%
Italy 1.62% /1.89%
Belgium 1.48% /1.88%
Austria 1.58% / 1.74%
Netherlands 1.29% / 1.73%
United Kingdom 1.79% / 1.72%
Germany 1.56% /1.70%
Denmark 1.99% / 1.61%
Norway 2.09% /1.58%
Australia 1.54% /1.47%
United States 1.52% / 1.32%
Switzerland 0.84% / 0.80%
France 1.31% / 0.12%
Sweden 0.81% / 0.06%
Canada 0.86% /-0.73%
U.S.S.R.* -2.64% / -5.05%
there hasnt been a free market in the history of government.
But show me my error where the government did not collect taxes.
I suggest you opt out of these adult themes and concepts.
Myths of the Free Market
Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.
The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.
Table 1: Average Annual Growth in Real GNP per Capita
Country / 1980-1994 / 1985-1994
South Korea* 7.72% / 8.17%
Thailand* 5.81% / 7.74%
Taiwan* 6.20% / 7.07%
Peoples * 6.46% / 5.83%
Indonesia* 3.26% / 4.40%
Ireland 3.08% / 4.11%
India* 3.07% / 3.00%
Japan 2.88% / 2.78%
Spain 1.98% /2.65%
Italy 1.62% /1.89%
Belgium 1.48% /1.88%
Austria 1.58% / 1.74%
Netherlands 1.29% / 1.73%
United Kingdom 1.79% / 1.72%
Germany 1.56% /1.70%
Denmark 1.99% / 1.61%
Norway 2.09% /1.58%
Australia 1.54% /1.47%
United States 1.52% / 1.32%
Switzerland 0.84% / 0.80%
France 1.31% / 0.12%
Sweden 0.81% / 0.06%
Canada 0.86% /-0.73%
U.S.S.R.* -2.64% / -5.05%
Source: Development Center of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
If that isn't a U.N. type socialist propaganda organ, I'll vote Democrat.
Your source isn't credible.
Myths of the Free Market
Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.
The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.
Table 1: Average Annual Growth in Real GNP per Capita
Country / 1980-1994 / 1985-1994
South Korea* 7.72% / 8.17%
Thailand* 5.81% / 7.74%
Taiwan* 6.20% / 7.07%
Peoples * 6.46% / 5.83%
Indonesia* 3.26% / 4.40%
Ireland 3.08% / 4.11%
India* 3.07% / 3.00%
Japan 2.88% / 2.78%
Spain 1.98% /2.65%
Italy 1.62% /1.89%
Belgium 1.48% /1.88%
Austria 1.58% / 1.74%
Netherlands 1.29% / 1.73%
United Kingdom 1.79% / 1.72%
Germany 1.56% /1.70%
Denmark 1.99% / 1.61%
Norway 2.09% /1.58%
Australia 1.54% /1.47%
United States 1.52% / 1.32%
Switzerland 0.84% / 0.80%
France 1.31% / 0.12%
Sweden 0.81% / 0.06%
Canada 0.86% /-0.73%
U.S.S.R.* -2.64% / -5.05%
Source: Development Center of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
If that isn't a U.N. type socialist propaganda organ, I'll vote Democrat.
Your source isn't credible.
Myths of the Free Market
Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.
The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.
Table 1: Average Annual Growth in Real GNP per Capita
Country / 1980-1994 / 1985-1994
South Korea* 7.72% / 8.17%
Thailand* 5.81% / 7.74%
Taiwan* 6.20% / 7.07%
Peoples * 6.46% / 5.83%
Indonesia* 3.26% / 4.40%
Ireland 3.08% / 4.11%
India* 3.07% / 3.00%
Japan 2.88% / 2.78%
Spain 1.98% /2.65%
Italy 1.62% /1.89%
Belgium 1.48% /1.88%
Austria 1.58% / 1.74%
Netherlands 1.29% / 1.73%
United Kingdom 1.79% / 1.72%
Germany 1.56% /1.70%
Denmark 1.99% / 1.61%
Norway 2.09% /1.58%
Australia 1.54% /1.47%
United States 1.52% / 1.32%
Switzerland 0.84% / 0.80%
France 1.31% / 0.12%
Sweden 0.81% / 0.06%
Canada 0.86% /-0.73%
U.S.S.R.* -2.64% / -5.05%
Maybe he still looking through his history book looking for the first instance of a free market. Since he doesnt know of any off the top of his head.
You know what gets me? I KNOW that when they get everything they want, and the country goes to hell in a handbasket, they're going to turn around and blame the dems. I can guarandamntee it.
Source: Development Center of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
If that isn't a U.N. type socialist propaganda organ, I'll vote Democrat.
Your source isn't credible.
Maybe he still looking through his history book looking for the first instance of a free market. Since he doesnt know of any off the top of his head.
There is no such thing as a free market. All markets are constructed. But you are totally missing the point.
Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.
The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.
There's no such thing as a free market. Governments and religions have been enforcing trade rules since before recorded history. Anyone who uses that term isn't really worth listening to about economic issues.
Good one. Maybe he still looking through his history book looking for the first instance of a free market. Since he doesnt know of any off the top of his head.
There is no such thing as a free market. All markets are constructed. But you are totally missing the point.
Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.
The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.
We are sluggish because of more government. Not the other way around. We got here due to government interference. But you might be able to explain it away..........
Go ahead....................
Maybe he still looking through his history book looking for the first instance of a free market. Since he doesnt know of any off the top of his head.
There is no such thing as a free market. All markets are constructed. But you are totally missing the point.
Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.
The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.
We are sluggish because of more government. Not the other way around. We got here due to government interference. But you might be able to explain it away..........
Go ahead....................
Bush can share the blame for financial crisis - The New York TimesBut in Washington and on Wall Street, the debate has already begun. And while economists and other experts say there are plenty of culprits: Democrats and Republicans in Congress, the Federal Reserve, an overzealous home-lending industry, banks, and also Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton - they do agree that the Bush administration bears part of the blame.
GOP RECORD OF DEREGULATION DEMOCRATIC RECORD OF OVERSIGHT
December 28, 2002: A study by Federal Reserve economists reported homeowners taking advantage of falling interest rates and rising home values to extract $131.6 billion via mortgage refinancings in 2001 and early 2002, while consumers spent some of the money, they saved or invested more of it, according to a study published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin. Homeowners spent an estimated $20.7 billion of the cash for personal items such as cars, vacations or medical services, the study said. [Chicago Tribune, 12/28/02]
May 2002: Senator Sarbanes introduces the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2002. [S. 2438]
November 2003: Senator Sarbanes, introduces the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2003. [S. 1928]
February 23, 2004: Instead of heeding warnings, Federal Reserve leadership promotes non-traditional mortgages over fixed rate products in a speech to the Credit Union National Association annual conference. "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage.the traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home." [Remarks By Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, 2/23/04]
October 8, 2003: Bush administration objected to a proposal to have an independent regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be an independent unit of Treasury, much like financial regulators housed in the agency that oversee banks and thrifts. The Bush administration also objected to a proposal to have the Department of Housing and Urban Development have oversight over the companies' business activities. The independence provision has broad support from committee Democrats and Republicans. The HUD provision was pushed mostly by Democrats but had been accepted by Oxley and Baker as a compromise needed to move the bill forward. [Washington Post, 10/8/03]
February 24, 2004: At a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Norman Rice, President and CEO of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle questioned having low-income Americans use ARM's to finance their homes. In addition, Senator Sarbanes questioned the Federal Reserve's promotion of alternative mortgage products over traditional fixed rate mortgages:
* Norman Rice: "Particularly if you're talking about serving an underserved constituency. Adjustable rate mortgages for a low income constituency is a nightmare."
* Senator Sarbanes: "[The Federal Reserve] is pushing adjustable rate mortgages, and throwing this risk back on the consumer." [Senate Banking Committee Transcript, 2/25/04]
June 30, 2004: After encouraging the use of non-traditional mortgages, many of which re-set with rising interest rates, the Federal Reserve begins to raise rates-17 consecutive, 25 basis point increases that take the Federal Reserve Funds rate from a 46-year low of 1 percent in June 2004 to 5.25 percent in June 2006. [Market News International, 4/29/08]
October 26, 2005: House of Representatives passed regulation reforming the GSE's. The bill passed the House 331-90 (Republicans: 209-15; Democrats: 122-74), and would have given the new regulator broad authority over setting capital requirements and limiting portfolio size. Senate Democrats picked that bill up and offered it, but the Administration opposed that legislation. According to Mr. Oxley, the White House gave Congress and the GSE reform legislation "a one-finger salute."
There is no such thing as a free market. All markets are constructed. But you are totally missing the point.
Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.
The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.
We are sluggish because of more government. Not the other way around. We got here due to government interference. But you might be able to explain it away..........
Go ahead....................
It's almost like I predicted up. Oh wait...I did.
Totally predictable. And totally wrong.
Huge Bush Deregulation Push Before Jan. 20 - White House will relax rules on environment, consumer protection
Bush can share the blame for financial crisis - The New York TimesBut in Washington and on Wall Street, the debate has already begun. And while economists and other experts say there are plenty of culprits: Democrats and Republicans in Congress, the Federal Reserve, an overzealous home-lending industry, banks, and also Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton - they do agree that the Bush administration bears part of the blame.
GOP RECORD OF DEREGULATION DEMOCRATIC RECORD OF OVERSIGHT
December 28, 2002: A study by Federal Reserve economists reported homeowners taking advantage of falling interest rates and rising home values to extract $131.6 billion via refinancings in 2001 and early 2002, while consumers spent some of the money, they saved or invested more of it, according to a study published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin. Homeowners spent an estimated $20.7 billion of the cash for personal items such as cars, vacations or medical services, the study said. [Chicago Tribune, 12/28/02]
May 2002: Senator Sarbanes introduces the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2002. [S. 2438]
November 2003: Senator Sarbanes, introduces the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2003. [S. 1928]
February 23, 2004: Instead of heeding warnings, Federal Reserve leadership promotes non-traditional mortgages over fixed rate products in a speech to the Credit Union National Association annual conference. "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage.the traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home." [Remarks By Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, 2/23/04]
October 8, 2003: Bush administration objected to a proposal to have an independent regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be an independent unit of Treasury, much like financial regulators housed in the agency that oversee banks and thrifts. The Bush administration also objected to a proposal to have the Department of Housing and Urban Development have oversight over the companies' business activities. The independence provision has broad support from committee Democrats and Republicans. The HUD provision was pushed mostly by Democrats but had been accepted by Oxley and Baker as a compromise needed to move the bill forward. [Washington Post, 10/8/03]
February 24, 2004: At a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Norman Rice, President and CEO of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle questioned having low-income Americans use ARM's to finance their homes. In addition, Senator Sarbanes questioned the Federal Reserve's promotion of alternative mortgage products over traditional fixed rate mortgages:
* Norman Rice: "Particularly if you're talking about serving an underserved constituency. Adjustable rate mortgages for a low income constituency is a nightmare."
* Senator Sarbanes: "[The Federal Reserve] is pushing adjustable rate mortgages, and throwing this risk back on the consumer." [Senate Banking Committee Transcript, 2/25/04]
June 30, 2004: After encouraging the use of non-traditional mortgages, many of which re-set with rising interest rates, the Federal Reserve begins to raise rates-17 consecutive, 25 basis point increases that take the Federal Reserve Funds rate from a 46-year low of 1 percent in June 2004 to 5.25 percent in June 2006. [Market News International, 4/29/08]
October 26, 2005: House of Representatives passed regulation reforming the GSE's. The bill passed the House 331-90 (Republicans: 209-15; Democrats: 122-74), and would have given the new regulator broad authority over setting capital requirements and limiting portfolio size. Senate Democrats picked that bill up and offered it, but the Administration opposed that legislation. According to Mr. Oxley, the White House gave Congress and the GSE reform legislation "a one-finger salute."
The Bush-Republican Distrous Policy of Financial Deregulation - BaptistBoard.com
are asked to contribute 
Oil subsidies are a GOP stealth-tax on the middle-class. Gawd forbid the rich..... errr..... job-creators
Oil subsidies are a GOP stealth-tax on the middle-class. Gawd forbid the rich..... errr..... job-creators
Stealth tax?
So we eliminate what makes them competitive with other countries, the prices rise.
How does that tax work again?
Oil subsidies are a GOP stealth-tax on the middle-class. Gawd forbid the rich..... errr..... job-creators
Ummm.....thats why we're not paying the true price for oil. It is being subsidized by the taxpayer whilst Exxon posted the largest corporate profit ever
